I interviewed fellow TAFE student Belinda-Jane Clark, Waikerie Librarian Michael Cox and Uni student Emily Hudson about their attitudes
towards various media and the reporters/journalists who work for each type.
When I asked how trustworthy my interviewees find newspaper articles and the journalists who write them to be, Belinda-Jane Clark responded as follows...
"I expect 'news' articles to be trustworthy- they are meant to be telling us truthfully what is going on. However I understand that some owners of this media would prevent certain articles even being printed, if it were going against their views, or would impact them financially. When it comes to other articles in the newspaper, like human interest or celebrity gossip, I take it with caution as you don't know why they have produced that story in the first place-for example, is there an underlying reason why they are always picking on Lady GaGa? I can't say I don't trust journalists per se, but you can always spot someone who is trying to lead you in a certain direction."
Michael Cox stated the fact that journalists have to sell newspapers therefore they always try to sensationalise a story to make it more readable.
However he did add, "Freelance journalists who are not connected to a particular paper are probably more trustworthy. Overall I tend to be wary what I read in articles and tend to question some of their findings."
Journalists sometimes delete information or twist the meanings of their articles. Emily Hudson suggested that journalists don't necessarily change or omit facts for their own purpose but rather for the employer they work for.
She said, "I believe it is illegal to report nonfactual information, but there is a difference between writing lies and altering the truth to make it sound more exciting and dramatic. For example, the Delhi Games was reported to be an epic disaster, and this was backed up by 'horrible pictures of collapsing bridges, leaking rooms and decrepit rooms for athletes'. What they omitted, in many cases, was the rest of it all; the beautiful gardens, spectacular arenas and a country that was so excited to be welcoming visitors and competitors to their country."
The interviewees were all in agreement that they wouldn't trust information from the internet solely for educational purposes due to misinformation. Belinda-Jane Clark believes cross-referencing with books as well as the internet is the best option. Emily Hudson said she would trust the internet less than other educational sources especially if it is from an "unreliable, un-referenced site". Michael Cox would rather use a reputable database such as Britannica because he said the information is more likely to be checked before approval. However Mr. Cox added, "...information does change, for example, scientific theories like evolution."
Emily Hudson said she has to check that the information she finds over the net is correct because she is studying for her University degree. Michael Cox and Belinda-Jane Clark both admitted that they don't always verify the information they find over the internet, but they both still try to look for inconsistencies and try to make sure the sites are reputable.
Overall Michael Cox and Emily Hudson believe the internet is a powerful tool if utilized properly. Belinda-Jane Clark and Mr. Cox think that everything from the net should be taken with a grain of salt, because there is no one to check all the sites. Two of the interviewees also said it can be used by "cunning religious/political crackpots" to brainwash people into believing their ideas to form a group of supporters. However, Belinda-Jane and Emily Hudson agreed that the genuine websites are full of great and quality information.
Belinda-Jane Clark sums up the opinion of most of the interviewees when she describes how reliable she thinks radio presenters are:
"On news shows and talkback-very reliable, they need to have the facts before they present them. But on things like morning shows, they can speak without backup, making allegations etc. that may not be fully backed up by facts."
Emily Hudson said most of the radio shows are made up of the presenter's/writer's opinion which makes what they say unreliable and Michael Cox said the radio presenters/writers tend to "exaggerate, elaborate, and milk issues for all they are worth" to keep people listening.
All the interviewees believed TV news reporters/readers were more trustworthy compared to journalists who work for current affairs programs. Current affairs programs were deemed less credible, less newsworthy and are described by one interviewee as, "overdramatised, horribly inaccurate" and that they, "make a soap opera out of reality".
Two interviewees thought that newspapers were the most trustworthy out of the selected mediums because "... their work is forever evidence of right or wrong doing" and "...there should be more research and more reliable sources." The other interviewee said that it was too hard to decide as a lot of mediums are owned by the same people/companies but believed that the internet was the least reliable because, "it is such a massive source of information and it makes it harder to filter the good from the bad."
